Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[acbytesla]

oh golly, if you SAY so....

(Hulk Hogan was awarded $140 mil, it seems like that $1 mil per breach liquidated damages is making more sense now don't it folks?)

The answer is that it does.

We will see. The facts of that case are considerably different. But hey, if it keeps you warm at night.

 

[Bob001]

oh golly, if you SAY so....

(Hulk Hogan was awarded $140 mil, it seems like that $1 mil per breach liquidated damages is making more sense now don't it folks?)

The answer is that it does.

No, the Gawker case was a completely different matter involving invasion of privacy, and damages therefore. Every expert says that "liquidated damages" resulting from a breach of contract must be commensurate with the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. It's up to Trump to prove whether and how much his reputation is damaged by Daniels' claims. I suspect many juries would award $1, if the case ever got that far.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not so sure the Trumpers forgave personal transgressions as much as overlooked them in exchange for expected benefits: "I hate the sleazy stuff, but this is a brilliant businessman who will bring our jobs back." As people come to realize that they're not getting back the steel mills and coal mines and car factories that closed decades ago, and as they understand that punitive tariffs will increase the prices they pay at Walmart and reduce the jobs associated with U.S. exports, and as they lose their health insurance and see the social safety net cut back, they are more likely to say "This is a guy who can't be trusted about anything." Let's hope he takes all the Repubs down with him.

Or, to put it differently, "It's the economy, stupid."

As long as he is creating jobs for more than just hookers, this won't harm him. If the economy turns south, or if the benefits don't reach his voters, he and his party are out.

Related to that, one thing this whole incident does do is open him up to schoolyard style insults, and that doesn't ever do any politician any good. It is harder and harder to take him seriously when you are worried that there might be pictures of the things Ms. Clifford described.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, the Gawker case was a completely different matter involving invasion of privacy, and damages therefore. Every expert says that "liquidated damages" resulting from a breach of contract must be commensurate with the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. It's up to Trump to prove whether and how much his reputation is damaged by Daniels' claims. I suspect many juries would award $1, if the case ever got that far.

While I am quite confident you didn't talk to every expert, I am also quite sure that most so-called experts were a bit surprised that a professional wrestler got that much dough.

As such, we are talking about damages, what is the value of disclosing personal information where there was an expectation of privacy? And if she has a photo? Hooboy

The Hulk got a $140 mil, I don't think that The Donald would have much proving that up.

By the way, the case will be heard by an arbitrator.

 

[acbytesla]

While I am quite confident you didn't talk to every expert, I am also quite sure that most so-called experts were a bit surprised that a professional wrestler got that much dough.

As such, we are talking about damages, what is the value of disclosing personal information where there was an expectation of privacy? And if she has a photo? Hooboy

The Hulk got a $140 mil, I don't think that The Donald would have much proving that up.

By the way, the case will be heard by an arbitrator.

That has yet to be determined. And even an arbiter's decision is appealable. And an arbiter has to abide by the law, not just the contract.

 

[The Big Dog]

That has yet to be determined. And even an arbiter's decision is appealable. And an arbiter has to abide by the law, not just the contract.

say, maybe the thread lawyers feel like weighing in on that, hmmmm?

 

[Loss Leader]

The ones set forth in 2.2b obviously, which you have inexplicably declared to be "nothing."

Stormy's defense (not Trump's, that is silly) to the the enforceability of the contract is that it wasn't signed, and I can tell you that given that she accepted the money and the other two parties acted in conformity with the agreement you are quite correct that "The law just doesn't favor it being a winning defense."

The penalty clause ain't the most important, the confidential arbitration clause is for reasons that should be obvious.

By the way? This? "But, by all means, keep disagreeing with two lawyers. It's really working out for you." That is what I hear tell is called Danth's law, right there. And as such, perhaps it isn't going as bad for me as you think?

You are wrong. But since you won't hear it, I'll stop telling you. Just assume that any time you post anything in this thread that my silence indicated that you are wrong.

 

[Bob001]

While I am quite confident you didn't talk to every expert, I am also quite sure that most so-called experts were a bit surprised that a professional wrestler got that much dough.

As such, we are talking about damages, what is the value of disclosing personal information where there was an expectation of privacy? And if she has a photo? Hooboy
....

There's a big difference between stealing and publishing somebody's private tapes and Daniels revealing what she herself participated in. That's why any action -- if at all -- would be based on breach of contract, not invasion of privacy.

You can't just make stuff up.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are wrong. But since you won't hear it, I'll stop telling you. Just assume that any time you post anything in this thread that my silence indicated that you are wrong.

I am wrong? Hmmm, about the fact that the claims Trump released in the agreement were in 2.2?

That it was Stormy's defense?

that the arbitration provision is the most important?

Or danth's law?

Because those look pretty damn correct...

 

[The Big Dog]

There's a big difference between stealing and publishing somebody's private tapes and Daniels revealing what she herself participated in. That's why any action -- if at all -- would be based on breach of contract, not invasion of privacy.

You can't just make stuff up.

Yeah I guess, not sure what that has to do with Hulk Hogan tho.

 

[Bob001]

Yeah I guess, not sure what that has to do with Hulk Hogan tho.

What? What do you think the Hulk Hogan case was about? Gawker published a stolen private tape of Hogan and his wife having sex. Hogan had no contract with Gawker, and Gawker had no right to have the tape, let alone publish it. Hogan -- supported by an internet billionaire -- sued for invasion of privacy, and a jury found in his favor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html

What do you think that has to do with Trump and Daniels and their contract?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

While I am quite confident you didn't talk to every expert, I am also quite sure that most so-called experts were a bit surprised that a professional wrestler got that much dough.
.

I'm quite confident you and and the word expert aren't even acquaintances.

But it is amusing, so carry on....

 

[Craig4]

Go back and look at my edit, hopefully it will reaffirm your faith in humanity...

I'm sure you'd rush to the defense of Obama if he were in a dispute about an NDA with a porn star. Oh so principled.

 

[Craig4]

say, maybe the thread lawyers feel like weighing in on that, hmmmm?

You do realize that at least two of the posters here are actual lawyers? Whereas, you simple decided your "president" was in the right and googled searched some opinions that it turns out weren't applicable to make him in the right. You backed a horse in the election, he hit a stumble, you found a way to make him righteous in your mind. It's not as there are any principals or morality in your position. Obama or Clinton in the same boat, you'd pillory without a thought the legality or morality of it.

 

[The Big Dog]

What? What do you think the Hulk Hogan case was about? Gawker published a stolen private tape of Hogan and his wife having sex. Hogan had no contract with Gawker, and Gawker had no right to have the tape, let alone publish it. Hogan -- supported by an internet billionaire -- sued for invasion of privacy, and a jury found in his favor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html

What do you think that has to do with Trump and Daniels and their contract?

Ook, that is a shocking number of errors in that post

Start with fixing the his wife part and we'll go from there

 

[The Big Dog]

You do realize that at least two of the posters here are actual lawyers? Whereas, you simple decided your "president" was in the right and googled searched some opinions that it turns out weren't applicable to make him in the right. You backed a horse in the election, he hit a stumble, you found a way to make him righteous in your mind. It's not as there are any principals or morality in your position. Obama or Clinton in the same boat, you'd pillory without a thought the legality or morality of it.

So i have heard claimed! One would think that with so many i would not have to rebut so many errors and explain so many basic legal concepts.

 

[acbytesla]

What? What do you think the Hulk Hogan case was about? Gawker published a stolen private tape of Hogan and his wife having sex. Hogan had no contract with Gawker, and Gawker had no right to have the tape, let alone publish it. Hogan -- supported by an internet billionaire -- sued for invasion of privacy, and a jury found in his favor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html

What do you think that has to do with Trump and Daniels and their contract?

Huuuge difference. One is a massive invasion of privacy. The other is a contract dispute.
The jury in the Hulk Hogan case was allowed to award not just compensatory damages but punitive damages. That cannot happen with the NDA breech.

 

[fagin]

I think there maybe a bit of getting off track here. The crucial aspect seems to be illegal campaign funds. Not potential damages.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/0...onald-trump-one-his-toughest-legal-challenges

'Daniels and Avenatti look to be cleanly executing a strategy that has the potential to see Donald Trump hauled into court and required to answer questions about his sexual conduct and campaign finances under oath'

 

[acbytesla]

I think there maybe a bit of getting off track here. The crucial aspect seems to be illegal campaign funds. Not potential damages.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/0...onald-trump-one-his-toughest-legal-challenges

'Daniels and Avenatti look to be cleanly executing a strategy that has the potential to see Donald Trump hauled into court and required to answer questions about his sexual conduct and campaign finances under oath'

I agree. But we're just pointing out that one problem of the NDA is the enforceability of the damages clause.

Avenatti must be loving this. He has taunted and bullied the President and his lawyer endlessly. He's done a great job of effectively promoting both his and his client's interests.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think there maybe a bit of getting off track here. The crucial aspect seems to be illegal campaign funds. Not potential damages.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/0...onald-trump-one-his-toughest-legal-challenges

'Daniels and Avenatti look to be cleanly executing a strategy that has the potential to see Donald Trump hauled into court and required to answer questions about his sexual conduct and campaign finances under oath'

Oh my.... I do enjoy a good opinion piece about an arbitration agreement that does not mention arbitration, and contains lines like:

"Even before the 60 Minutes interview aired, Trump and Cohen had countersued Daniels for more than $20m."

Absolutely false